Transcription

2 NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL The National Education Goals Panel is a bipartisan body of federal and state officials* made up of eight governors, four members of Congress, four state legislators and two members appointed by the president. To learn more about the Goals Panel, please visit The eight National Education Goals calls for greater levels of student achievement and citizenship; high school completion; teacher education and professional development; parental participation in the schools; literacy and lifelong learning; and safe, disciplined, and alcohol-anddrug-free schools. The Goals also call for all children to be ready to learn by the time they start school and for U.S. students to be first in the world of mathematics and science achievement. CHAIR 2001 Governor Frank O Bannon of Indiana CHAIR-ELECT 2002 Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming MEMBERS Governor John Engler of Michigan Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma Governor Paul E. Patton of Kentucky Governor Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico U.S. Representative George Miller, California State Representative G. Spencer Coggs of Wisconsin State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw of Illinois State Representative Douglas R. Jones of Idaho State Senator Stephen M. Stoll, Missouri

4 from THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS GOAL 3: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT all students will leave grades 4, 8 and 12, having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter Objective 1: The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary levels will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. About the Author Paul E. Barton prepared this report for the National Education Goals Panel. Mr. Barton is a former Director of the Policy Information Center at Educational Testing Service (ETS). At ETS he also has served as Associate Director of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Barton has been President of the National Institute for Work and Learning, a member of the secretary of Labor s Policy Planning Staff, and a staff member of the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President.

5 FOREWORD The National Education Goals Panel is pleased to release a new analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) by Paul E. Barton. This report looks at results for public school students in the nation and in participating states from state NAEP administered in It examines in detail the change in NAEP 4 th and 8 th grade mathematics scores at the state level between the base line year and the most recent administration of the test. Thirty-six states, which include the District of Columbia and Guam, participated in state level NAEP mathematics assessments in the 4 th grade in both 1992 and Thirty-one states, which include the District of Columbia and Guam, participated in state level NAEP mathematics assessments in the 8 th grade in both 1990 and The analysis examines on a state-by-state basis change over time in scores. In order to provide a fuller picture of mathematics achievement in the states, the NAEP results are disaggregated by subgroups of students. Specifically, the analysis looks at the change in a state s average score; the change in scores for students in the bottom or lowest scoring quartile; the change in scores for students in the top or highest scoring quartile; and at the change in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher on the NAEP mathematics assessment. Goal 3 of the National Education Goals states that all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter... Objective 1 under Goal 3 states: The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary levels will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. The Bush Administration s proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, is consistent with Objective 1 in its focus on reducing the historic achievement gaps between minority and economically disadvantaged students and majority and economically advantaged students. Consequently, this report provides additional comparisons that look at the change in the gap between students in the top and bottom quartiles; the change in the gap between minority and majority student scores; and the change in the gap between the scores of student who are and are not eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The latter category is the best available indicator for identifying economically disadvantaged students and, for this analysis, covers the period between 1996 and THE RESULTS Overall, the results in mathematics are encouraging. The majority of participating states and the nation as a whole showed statistically significant positive change in average scores, the scores for the top and bottom quartiles, and in the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher. However, the good news in mathematics achievement does not extend to reducing the gaps in performance between groups of students. The nation and the states were less successful in

6 closing the gap in the scores between the top and bottom quartiles. More significantly, there was almost no progress in closing the gaps between the scores of majority and minority students or between the scores of students eligible and not eligible for free or reduced price lunch. These historic gaps remain stubbornly persistent and troubling. We can only realize the lofty goal of improving the education of all students by accelerating improvements in achievement for those students who have historically not been as successful in our educational system. In the 4 th grade: 27 of 36 states and the nation raised students average scores. 26 of 36 states and the nation raised the average score of students in the bottom quartile. 27 of 36 states and the nation raised the average score of students in the top quartile. 25 of 36 states and the nation raised the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher. However: Only 14 of 36 states reduced the gap in scores between the top and bottom quartiles. Only 2 states, North Carolina and Georgia, reduced the gap between white and minority scores. Only 1 state, Connecticut, reduced the gap in scores between students eligible and not eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Public school fourth-graders in Connecticut and North Carolina showed improvement in six of the seven categories examined. Another nine states Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia and the nation as a whole showed improvement in five of the seven categories. In the 8 th grade: 27 of 31 states and the nation raised average scores and none declined. 21 of 31 states and the nation raised the average score of students in the bottom quartile and none declined. 29 of 31 states and the nation raised the average score of students in the top quartile and none declined. 29 of 31 states and the nation raised the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher and none declined. However: Only 8 of 31 states reduced the gap in scores between the top and bottom quartiles and the gap increased in 5 states. No states reduced the gap between white and minority scores and the gap increased in 2 states. No state reduced the gap in scores between students eligible and not eligible for free and reduced price lunch.

7 Public school eighth-graders in eight states Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia showed improvement in five of the seven categories examined. Five states New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia showed improvements in at least five of the seven categories at both the 4 th - and 8 th -grade. IN CONCLUSION The overall results from the 2000 NAEP mathematics assessment are encouraging. In the nation and in the majority of participating states, achievement is increasing for students at all levels of performance. The good news, however, should not obscure the need for even greater improvement. Only 25% of the nation s fourth-graders and 26% of its eighth-graders scored at the proficient level or higher, the level determined by the Goals Panel to be reflective of competency in challenging subject matter Furthermore, no significant progress has been made in reducing the performance gaps experienced by minority and economically disadvantaged children. This is the fundamental challenge that must be the focus of the next phase of education reform and improvement. Looking at the broader range of NAEP data, mathematics is the one academic area where notable progress and improvement is evident. The recently released results of the 2000 NAEP science assessment reveal stagnant performance. Scores for students in the fourth and eighth grades were essentially unchanged from the previous administration of the test in 1996, and scores for twelfth-graders declined. An earlier Goals Panel analysis of NAEP reading data (Raising Academic Achievement and Reducing Gaps: Reporting on Progress Toward Goals for Academic Achievement; Paul E. Barton; March, 2001) documented a decline in reading achievement for students in the bottom quartile. The relative success in mathematics suggests the need for additional research and case studies to attempt to identify the factors in policy and practice that are contributing to improvements overall and in the limited number of states showing improvement in the greatest number of categories.

8 Acknowledgements This report is based entirely on the data collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The data used in the report were provided for the National Education Goals Panel through an arrangement between the National Center for Educational Statistics and the Education Testing Service (ETS). ETS made all tabulations. I thank David Freund and Mei-Jang Lin for them.

9 Table of Contents Executive Summary...1 Introduction...3 Changes in Achievement and Gaps in Achievement...5 The Fourth Grade...5 The Eighth Grade...8 Changes in the Gap Between Students Eligible for School Lunch and Those Not Eligible ( )...12 State Trends...13 Changes in Fourth Grade Math Scores...14 Changes in the Gap Between the Top and Bottom Quartiles in Fourth Grade Mathematics...16 Changes in the Gap Between White and Minority Student Scores in Eighth Grade Mathematics...18 Changes in the Gap Between Students Eligible for the School Lunch Program and Students Not Eligible in Fourth Grade Mathematics...20 Changes in Eighth Grade Mathematics Scores...22 Changes in the Gap Between the Top and Bottom Quartiles Eighth Grade Mathematics...24 Changes in the Gap Between White and Minority Students Scores in Eighth Grade Mathematics...26 Changes in the Gap Between Students Eligible for the School Lunch Program and Students Not Eligible in Eighth Grade Mathematics...28 Appendix Tables...30

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report draws on an in-depth analysis of data, previously unpublished, from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, to gauge progress in mathematics toward the goal set following the Education Summit in Charlottesville, Virginia, in September of The Summit was attended by President George Bush and the nation s Governors. The goal was to have students demonstrate knowledge in challenging subject matter, with the objective that The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in every quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. The data in the report are for changes in achievement in 4 th grade mathematics for the period from 1992 to 2000, and in 8 th grade mathematics for the period from 1990 to Data are also provided on the gap between poor and non-poor students from 1996 to Data provided for Minority students are a combination of scores for Black and Hispanic students. The data are state by state, and the term state includes the District of Columbia and Guam. In mathematics there was improvement in most all states in the average scores of all 8 th grade students in the state. Improvement was also widespread at the 4 th grade, but not in as many states. There was similar improvement in the percent of students reaching or exceeding the proficient level of performance. In most of these states showing improvement, it was up and down the line, although for the 8 th grade there were somewhat fewer that showed progress for students in the bottom fourth than for the average for all students or for those in the top fourth. The gap between top and bottom scoring students was unchanged in the majority of the states, but there was improvement in a considerable number for the 4 th grade, but for fewer in the 8 th grade. In the 8 th grade, the gap actually widened in five states. The results in the decade of the 1990s in terms of the important matter of reducing the gap between White and Minority students were very disappointing. In the 8 th grade, it narrowed in none of the states and in the 4 th grade, it narrowed in only two. The gap grew in two states in the 8 th grade and in one in the 4 th grade. In terms of the gap between poor and non-poor students, the picture was about the same as for the White/Minority gap. (The measure used was students eligible for the school lunch program as compared with students not eligible. The time period was from 1996 to 2000.) Overall, there was widespread improvement in performance in mathematics and up and down the distribution. In contrast, there was almost no improvement in the gap between students who are White and those who are Minority, with a similar absence of improvement for poor

11 versus non-poor (over a shorter time period), and with modest improvement in the gap between top and bottom scoring students.

12 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine educational achievement in mathematics, stateby-state, during the decade of the 1990s, in the terms set by President George Bush and the nation s Governors following the Education Summit in Charlottesville, Virginia in September of To do so, it draws on the data of the much respected National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also called The Nation s Report Card. The Goal (number 3) was to have students demonstrate knowledge in challenging subject matter, with the objective that The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in every quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. Since that time, in education reform proposals made by President George W. Bush, and, at this writing, passed by both Houses of Congress (but not as yet enacted) a new goal has been made explicit. It is that we also reduce the large gaps in achievement between the top and bottom students. This report also examines achievement in these terms. In a prior report, issued March 2001, I examined achievement in these terms for reading for the period of 1992 to 1998, and mathematics from 1990 to 1996, based on the latest NAEP assessments then available. Mathematics was last assessed in 2000, making it possible now to report on what happened from 1990 to 2000 (for 8 th grade students), and from 1992 to 2000 (for 4 th grade students). This report has expanded the examination of gaps in achievement to include the gap between students eligible to participate in the school lunch program and those not eligible. Roughly, this permits a comparison between students in poverty with those not in poverty. The data used in this report were produced through special tabulations of data that have not been previously published. These tabulations were performed by Educational Testing Service for the National Education Goals Panel under arrangements made by the National Center for Educational Statistics, the agency responsible for NAEP. Neither ETS nor NCES bear responsibility for the way I have used the data in this report. The report starts with a summation of the findings. It then provides detailed reports, state-by-state. In this section, the data are presented on the right hand page, and a test summarizing it is presented on the left hand page. The original tabulations provided by Educational Testing Service are shown in the Appendix. These tabulations, and technical data about them, provide much more data than are analyzed and summarized in the body of this report. Individual states and analysts can mine it to learn much more about student performance. In this report, Minority student scores mean a combination of scores for Black and Hispanic students. When the term state is used, it includes the District of Columbia and Guam.

13 CHANGES IN ACHIEVEMENT AND IN GAPS IN ACHIEVEMENT The Fourth Grade The following table summarizes the changes in achievement and in the gaps in achievement from 1992 to Average for all students. There was widespread improvement in the average for all student scores, and in some cases, there were sizeable gains. Average scores improved in 27 states, were unchanged in 8, and declined in only 1. Average for students in the bottom quartile. The pattern for students in the bottom fourth of the distribution was similar; scores rose in 26 state, were unchanged in 9, and fell in only 1. Average for students in the top quartile. Again, the pattern was similar to the average for all students. Scores rose in 27 states, were unchanged in 8 and fell in 1. Percent scoring at the proficient level or above. There was improvement in 25 states, 10 were unchanged, and 1 declined. A state may improve in the averages, but still not have enough students rise above the specific cut-point labeled as proficient to record a significant increase. This is discussed at some length in the prior report in March The gap from top to bottom. There was substantial, but considerably less improvement in the gap between the average scores in the top and bottom quartiles. The gap narrowed in 14 states, was unchanged in 22, and increased in none. The gap between White and Minority scores. This gap barely budged. It narrowed in only 2 states, remained the same in 32, and increased in 1. The gap between poor and non-poor students. Using eligibility for the school lunch program as the measure, the gap narrowed in only one state, and widened in one state.

16 The Eighth Grade The following table summarizes the changes in the 8 th grade in the period from 1990 to 2000 (state-by-state assessments began two years earlier for the 8 th grade than for the 4 th grade). Average for all students. There was improvement in 27 out of the 31 states that participated in the assessment in both of these years. There were no declines in average scores. Average for students in the bottom quartile. There were somewhat fewer states showing an improvement in students in the bottom fourth of the distribution, with 21 showing improvement, and none having a decline. Average for students in the top quartile. In contrast, there were more states showing improvement among students in the top fourth of the distribution than for the average for all students. Average scores rose in 29 states, were unchanged in 2, and declined in none. Percent of students scoring at or above the proficient level. The percentage rose in 29 states, 2 were unchanged, and none declined. The gap between the top and bottom students. There was less success in narrowing the gap between students in the top and bottom quartiles. The gap was reduced in just 8 states, and was unchanged in 18. The gap widened in 5 states. Note above that in some states, scores improved in the top quartile but not in the bottom quartile. Where the gap widened, it was from the best students getting better, not from declines among the lower achieving students. The gap between White and Minority students. There were no states in which there was a narrowing of the gap. It remained the same in 27 states and it worsened in 2. The gap between poor and non-poor students. Using eligibility for the school lunch program as the measure, there was widening of the gap in 2 states and the remaining 25 states were unchanged. (See the table on page 29 for additional states; the data are from the period )

19 CHANGES IN THE GAP BETWEEN STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR SCHOOL LUNCH AND THOSE NOT ELIGIBLE th Grade 1 8 th Grade 2 States Improving 1 3 States Unchanged States Declining 1 0 States includes District of Columbia and Guam states participating. 35 states participating.

20 STATE TRENDS The pages that follow provide more detail on trends. While the prior summary indicates the number of states where there was a significant change, the pages that follow also show the size of the changes, whether between the average scores or the gaps in scores in this time period. These tables and accompanying text show: Changes in average achievement scores for all students in each state. Changes in average scores for students in the top and bottom quartiles. Changes in the percent of students reaching the proficient level. Changes in the gap in average scores between the top and bottom quartiles. Changes in the gap in average scores between White and Minority students. Changes in the gap between students eligible for the school lunch program and those not eligible (for the period from 1996 to 2000.)

21 Changes in Fourth Grade Mathematics Scores In the period 1992 to 2000, there were gains in the great majority of the states in average scores, in the averages for both the bottom fourth of students and in the top fourth, and in the percentage reaching the proficient level of achievement. While a fourth failed to raise average scores, only Guam had a decline in scores during the period. Three states that raised their average scores did not also raise the percentage reaching the proficient level: California, Georgia and Oklahoma. As can be seen in the table on the right, several states had considerable gains in average scores, with nine states increasing by 10 to 20 scale points.

22 4 th GRADE MATHEMATICS, (PUBLIC SCHOOLS) CHANGES IN NAEP SCORES State Change in Average Score Change in Q1, Bottom Quartile Change in Q4, Top Quartile NATION 8* 8* 6* +* Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Connecticut Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Percentile at Or Above Proficient Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah 3* Virginia West Virginia Wyoming District of Columbia Guam From special tabulations of NAEP data prepared by Educational Testing Service Means Statistically Significant Changes in the Gap Between the Top and Bottom Quartiles in Fourth Grade Mathematics From 1992 to 2000, the gap in performance between the top and bottom fourth of students was reduced in 14 states, a substantial improvement in the decade, given the slow pace at which the gap has generally been changing. No state slipped backward.

23 The largest gap in performance was in California, at 82 points, and the smallest was in Oklahoma at 59 points.

25 Changes in the Gap Between White and Minority Student Scores in Eighth Grade Mathematics In the period from 1992 to 2000, just two states achieved a reduction in the gap between White and Minority (Black and Hispanic) student scores: Georgia and North Carolina. The gap increased in Utah. In 2000, the gap ranged from a high of 50 points in the District of Columbia and 35 in Rhode Island, to a low of 7 points in Maine and 15 in North Dakota.

27 Changes in the Gap Between Students Eligible for the School Lunch Program And Students Not Eligible in Fourth Grade Mathematics The gap was reduced in just one state, Connecticut, from 1996 to It rose in one state, Massachusetts. The gap was highest in Rhode Island and the District of Columbia at 31 points, and lowest in Maine, 12 points, and Iowa, 13, points.

29 Changes in Eighth Grade Mathematics Scores The decade of the 1990s saw widespread improvement in the average score, in the average for the bottom quarter of students as well as in the top quarter, and in the percentage of students reaching the proficiency level of achievement. All but four participating states raised their average scores. However, there were just 10 that failed to improve in the bottom quartile, compared to just 2 not improving in the top quartile. The lower scoring students did not share in the improvement as much as those above them. Only two states failed to make gains in the percent reaching the proficient levels in achievement. As can be seen in the table at the right, the gains were often substantial.

31 Changes in the Gap Between the Top and Bottom Quartiles Eighth Grade Mathematics From 1990 to 2000, the gap in performance was reduced in eight states. However, it grew in five states. The largest gap between performance of the top and bottom quartile students was 97 points in California, with Maryland a close second at 95. The lowest gap was 73 points in North Dakota.

33 Changes in the Gap Between White and Minority Student Scores in Eighth Grade Mathematics From 1990 to 2000, no participating state reduced the achievement gap between White and Minority (Black and Hispanic) students. The gap increased in two states: Alabama and Louisiana. In 2000, the gap ranged from a high of 44 scale points in Connecticut to a low of 15 in Montana.

35 The gap increased in three states from 1996 to 2000: Nebraska, Utah and the District of Columbia. There were no decreases. In 2000, the gap ranged from a high of 35 in Maryland and in the District of Columbia, to a low of 14 in Maine.

Current Advantage Enrollment : State and County-Level Tabulations 5 Slide Series, Volume 40 September 2016 Summary of Tabulations and Findings As of September 2016, 17.9 million of the nation s 56.1 million

BY STATE INFORMATION This information is being provided to assist in your 2016 tax preparations. The information is also mailed to applicable Columbia fund non-corporate shareholders with their year-end

Revised February 22, 2005 WHERE WOULD THE CUTS BE MADE UNDER THE PRESIDENT S BUDGET? Data Table 1 Elementary and Secondary Education Includes Education for the Disadvantaged, Impact Aid, School Improvement

EXHIBIT A List of Public Entities Participating in FEDES Project Alabama Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Alabama Department of Industrial Relations Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce

The Colorado River supports a quarter million jobs and produces $26 billion in economic output from recreational activities alone, drawing revenue from the 5.36 million adults who use the Colorado River

National Collegiate Soils Contest Rules Students of Agronomy, Soils, and Environmental Sciences (SASES) Revised September 30, 2008 I. NAME The contest shall be known as the National Collegiate Soils Contest

USDA Farm to School Program FY 2013 FY 2017 Summary of Grant Awards ABOUT THIS REPORT This report summarizes findings from an analysis of select data from the 365 farm to school projects funded by USDA

Use of Medicaid to Support Early Intervention Services 2010 The ITCA has conducted a national survey of Part C Coordinators for over 5 years. The goal of the survey is to gather relevant information and

NURSING HOME STATISTICAL YEARBOOK, 2015 C. MCKEEN COWLES COWLES RESEARCH GROUP Acknowledgments We extend our appreciation to Craig Dickstein of Tamarack Professional Services, LLC for optimizing the SAS

Vision Problems in the U.S. Prevalence of Adult Vision Impairment and Age-Related Eye Disease in America 2008 Update to the Fourth Edition Founded in 1908, Prevent Blindness America is the nation's leading

How North Carolina Compares A Compendium of State Statisticss January 2011 Prepared by the N.C. General Assembly Program Evaluation Division Prefacee The Program Evaluation Division of the North Carolina

United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Fourth Edition Food Stamp Program State s Report September 2004 vember 2002 Program Development Division Program Design Branch Food Stamp

Reading the Stars: Nursing Home Quality Star Ratings, Nationally and by State Cristina Boccuti, Giselle Casillas, Tricia Neuman About 1.3 million people receive care each day in over 15,500 nursing homes

2015-16 HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS PARTICIPATION SURVEY Conducted By THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF STATE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS Based on Competition at the High School Level in the 2015-16 School Year BOYS GIRLS

NASEMSO Monograph April 2007 The Training and Certification of Emergency Medical Services Personnel Produced with support from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Grants Prospect Research Finding the right funding prospects Powerpoint and resource guide available at: http://coloradogrants.org/grants-research-webinar.php Different types of research Foundation Corporate

The Welding Industry: A National Perspective on Workforce Trends and Challenges (Updated in February 2010) Prepared by Jongyun Kim, Ph.D. Joint Center for Policy Research Lorain County Community College

National Joint TERT Initiative Overview 1 Question? Who Does 9-1-1 Call When 9-1-1 Needs HELP?? 2 What Is TERT? The Telecommunicator Emergency Response Taskforce is a group of trained individuals who respond

State Nicknames A Right Angle Puzzle by David Pleacher Determine the name of the state for each of the fifty nicknames listed below. Then write the letters of that state in the 19 by 22 matrix using the

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Organizational Charts November 2011 Centers Attached to University Administrative Offices, such as the President, Vice President, Provost,

Holding the Line: How Massachusetts Physicians Are Containing Costs 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. INTRODUCTION Massachusetts is a high-cost state for health care, and costs continue

DataArts and the New CDP October 26, 2016 PRESENTED BY Mary Garcia Charumilind Senior Business Development Associate Overview Agenda Agenda 1 2 3 4 5 About DataArts The DataArts Platform The New Cultural

dear fellow taxpayers ABOUT TAXWATCH As an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit taxpayer research institute and government watchdog, it is the mission of Florida TaxWatch to provide the citizens of Florida

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT A Cooperative Purchasing Program available for membership by Government and Other Entities in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Certification and Education as Determinants of Nurse Practitioner Scope of Practice: An Investigation of the Rules and Regulations Defining NP Scope of Practice in the United States Christopher W. Blackwell,

Colleges/Universities with Exercise Science/Kinesiology-related Graduate Programs (If you know of a college/university not on this list, please contact the CSCCa National Office to have it added.) ALABAMA

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoners in 2010 Paul Guerino, Paige M. Harrison, and William J. Sabol, BJS Statisticians On December 31, 2010, state and federal correctional authorities

Dear State President, Congratulations on becoming the president of your SNA state association! It is my pleasure to personally thank you for your dedication to SNA, the school nutrition profession, and

Rankings & Estimates Rankings of the States 2010 and Estimates of School Statistics 2011 NEA RESEARCH DECEMBER 2010 A limited supply of complimentary copies of this publication are available from NEA Research

5/2003 (Rev. 9/2003) D-1 ANNEX D Procedure for Field Level Selection and Coordination of the Use of Radio Frequencies TABLE 1. FAA Coordinators, geographical areas of responsibility and applicable C-Notes

Block Name Today s Date Due Date Intro to US History & Regions of the United States USII.2c Special Note: page 3 is the Essential Knowledge of this SOL. It is your responsibility to study this information,

Games-to-Go Road Trip Record your travel information and mileage, write a journal, color pictures, do dot-to-dots, solve a maze and play games during your next road trip with this fun activity book. Assembly

Worksheet 1 Item 4552-A I am called The Grand Canyon State. I am a diverse state with deserts and mountains. I am called The Palmetto State. The first battle of the Civil War was fought within my borders.

SERVICE PROVIDER Membership Benefits Water Knowledge, Resources, and Community Build Expertise and Relationships in the Water Sector 88% of AWWA members who work at utilities are decision makers Members